No guarantees in Oakland's Measure I

Chip Johnson On the East Bay

Chronicle Columnist

Published 4:00 am, Friday, October 14, 2011

Image 1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

No guarantees in Oakland's Measure I

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

It's tough to hear Oakland city officials describe Measure I as a mechanism to fund public safety when less than half of the money the city hopes to raise with this parcel tax could be used to put Oakland police officers on the street.

And that's only if residents are still willing to take the members of the Oakland City Council at their word, because the measure can be used to pay for any "essential city service," including police, fire, youth violence prevention, road repair and library and park services, according to the Alameda County Registrar of Voter's sample ballot.

This is, after all, the same City Council that pushed aside three crime-fighting proposals last week and is now considering renewing a resolution that declares a "local public health emergency" in the city to ensure "safe, affordable access" to medical marijuana. So a medical weed shortage - not rampant violence - constitutes a citywide emergency?

When voters begin casting their vote-by-mail ballots next week on Measure I, they won't know exactly how their additional $60 million in taxes over five years would be spent - or even whether it would be spent to hire more police officers.

That's because the council has yet to decide on which one of two proposals it will approve on how the money will be divided between police services, youth programs, public lighting improvements and other city services.

Oakland doesn't have a shortage of youth programs, and I don't hear anyone other than council members pushing municipal lighting improvements as a deterrent to crime. Both could receive funding under Measure I.

But violent crime is another matter. High crime rates, the steady decline in the number of police officers on the street and the dangerous mix they pose to residents is table talk in homes across the city.

Oakland Mayor Jean Quan's plan calls for $4.6 million to restore police services, and pledges $1.2 million to youth programs. A competing proposal by Councilwomen Rebecca Kaplan and Pat Kernighan would provide $5.1 million for police personnel. Monies are also set aside in both proposals for park maintenance, road repairs and other items.

The Oakland Police Officer's Association, which represents the department's sworn officers, already sent a letter to the mayor's office stating its intention to take no position on the tax measure. "We did not know what the money would be used for," said Sgt. Dom Arotzarena, the association's president. "It kept changing."

Make Oakland Better Now, a coalition of about 500 residents, followed suit.

"The board is split on the issue," said Joe Tuman, a candidate in the last mayoral race and a Make Oakland Better Now board member. "Most of us are unhappy with the way these kinds of measures have gone in the past. There is no accountability on how money is spent, and no way to determine if it has worked."

If the city's past performance in meeting tax and bond pledges is a guide, officials certainly couldn't use it as campaign advertising.

The most notable example is Measure Y, a 2004 parcel tax measure that assured voters that $20 million annually would be spent to hire and pay the salaries of 63 additional officers and fund public safety programs. It came with a 10-year, iron-clad guarantee that the city would maintain a minimum police force of 802 officers.

Seven years and more than $100 million in taxpayer funds later, where are they? By the department's own count, Oakland has 651 sworn officers.

When you consider things from that point of view, I guess former Police Chief Anthony Batts wasn't the only person in Oakland that municipal government let down.

The funding allocations for the tax proposal are sure to be part of the public debate at a crime summit this weekend sponsored by the mayor's office, but keep this fact in mind:

Fighting crime is a social justice issue, too, and most people can't win a fight - or even compete - with one-hand tied behind their back.

The message conveyed to Oakland residents is that city leaders are willing to try just about anything other than an actual plan to address crime where it occurs - on the streets of a city with 390,000 residents and areas where crime occurs 24/7/365.

From a marketing standpoint, Oakland's Measure I couldn't have come at a worse time. Oakland voters will ponder approval of an annual $80 parcel tax with this week's resignation of Batts still fresh in their minds. A week earlier, the council delayed action on curfews, gang injunctions and loitering laws, public safety measures sought by Batts.

So in the space of a little more than two weeks, Oakland's elected officials have stalled three public safety measures, lost a popular and credible police chief and now come to residents to ask for public safety funding - again. There is a definite disconnect in the communications system between Oakland residents and most of the city's elected leaders.

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.